Global Warming Predictions

[tacoman25]

- In 1989, the Associated Press reported that "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." In reality, U.S. temperatures have increased by a miniscule amount since then, with the trend rise about .2-.4F...and from 2008-10, much cooler temperatures.

- In 2000, a senior research scientist at CRU in England predicted that within a few years, snowfall would be so rare that British children "just aren't going to know what snow is". The recent string of relatively snowless and mild winters in England was cited, and blamed on AGW: http://www.independe...ast-724017.html

Since then, the UK experienced increasingly colder and snowier winters in 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11, with numerous snowfalls and record cold temps over much of the British Isles.

- In 2001, scientists at the University of Massachusetts predicted that the snows atop Mt. Kilamanjaro in Africa would disappear as soon as 2015. However, it now appears that prediction was way off and the researchers have admitted it was a mistake:

http://www.masslive....redictions.html

- In 2005, the UN predicted there would be 50 million environmental refugees due to climate change by 2010: http://www.guardian.....climatechange1

However, by 2010 there was no demonstratable evidence of mass refugee migration due to climate change: http://www.prb.org/A...almigrants.aspx

- Climate models predicted Antarctica would see a temperature rise of 1.4F over the past 100 years; however, most studies now indicate a rise only around .5F.

- In 1986, James Hansen predicted that "within 15 years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn't existed on earth for 100,000 years". He also predicted U.S. temperatures would rise 3-4 degrees F by sometime between 2010-2020. http://hauntingtheli...t-100000-years/ . The first prediction was definitely wrong, and current U.S. temperature trends are not anywhere close to what he predicted.

[skierinvermont]

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

Predictions of global warming have remained fairly unchanged since the mid 1970s at between 2-4.5C equilibrium sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Climate models have generally been fairly accurate in predicting and simulating temperatures of the past few decades.

[BethesdaWX]

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

Predictions of global warming have remained fairly unchanged since the mid 1970s at between 2-4.5C equilibrium sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Climate models have generally been fairly accurate in predicting and simulating temperatures of the past few decades.

Nowhere near accurate, in 8.5 years, as Will stated, the IPCC has the running mean near 1998...

[skierinvermont]

Nowhere near accurate, in 8.5 years, as Will stated, the IPCC has the running mean near 1998...

Which we are already approaching and probably will reach by 2020.

[Snow_Miser]

- In 1986, James Hansen predicted that "within 15 years, global temperatures will rise to a level which hasn't existed on earth for 100,000 years". He also predicted U.S. temperatures would rise 3-4 degrees F by sometime between 2010-2020. http://hauntingtheli...t-100000-years/ . The first prediction was definitely wrong, and current U.S. temperature trends are not anywhere close to what he predicted.

Hansen also predicted that (and this was in 1989) that parts of NYC would be underwater.

Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life?

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained,

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water.

And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

http://dir.salon.com/books/int/2001/10/23/weather/index.html

[BethesdaWX]

Which we are already approaching and probably will reach by 2020.

We haven't warmed for 14 years dude, and have cooled since 2002. We close to expectations in the early 2000's....not anymore.

[tacoman25]

Can we stick to the scientific studies themselves instead of sensationalized and manipulated comments that appear in the media?

Predictions of global warming have remained fairly unchanged since the mid 1970s at between 2-4.5C equilibrium sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Climate models have generally been fairly accurate in predicting and simulating temperatures of the past few decades.

Tell that to the scientists who make the predictions. There is nothing manipulated about any of the predictions I posted. They honestly believe their predictions are based in solid science, and some like Hansen have no problem with sensationalizing.

[skierinvermont]

We haven't warmed for 14 years dude, and have cooled since 2002. We close to expectations in the early 2000's....not anymore.

Blatantly false.. we have warmed at around .11C/decade since 1998, even tacoman and zucker agree with this. The cooling since 2002 is due to ENSO (and solar).

[BethesdaWX]

Blatantly false.. we have warmed at around .11C/decade since 1998, even tacoman and zucker agree with this. The cooling since 2002 is due to ENSO (and solar).

Absolutely not.

That paper regards the direct TSI - to - Atmosphere impact from the Sun and shor term impact...not what is going into the Oceans, 1980-2005 were consistantly hyperactive regarding the Sun even if there was a slight decrease. The climate system has continued to warm due to the Oceans releasing more heat that has built up long term.

If we could figure out how exactly to adjust for IPO, QDO, PDO, AMO, Global SST, Global Cloud Cover/GCC, LLCC, M/ULCC, Volcanism, IOD, HLB, NAO/AO/AAO, QBO, NAM, Global Sea Ice, Global Snowcover, TSI, and Deep Ocean currents/speed, MJO, all little drivers.....Then we could remove for ENSO easily. Its not Just removing ENSO from the trend...its everything that infects the trend, which Tamino does not do. If we could measure GCC for example, we could probably determine alot more just on the one scale.

[ORH_wxman]

Which we are already approaching and probably will reach by 2020.

I'll take the under on warming ~0.2C in the next 9 years. Unless you use GISS as the sole method of temperature measurements.

[tacoman25]

Which we are already approaching and probably will reach by 2020.

What running mean is "already approaching" 1998 levels? The 5 year running mean has essentially flatlined, and it certainly isn't that close to 1998 temps.

[nzucker]

Blatantly false.. we have warmed at around .11C/decade since 1998, even tacoman and zucker agree with this. The cooling since 2002 is due to ENSO (and solar).

This doesn't even get us close to being at the 1998 temperatures for every year. Clearly another exaggeration.

[skierinvermont]

Tell that to the scientists who make the predictions. There is nothing manipulated about any of the predictions I posted.

Yes they are... for example.. the England snowfall thing. He says that "snowfall will become a rare and exciting event." Direct quote. Well as someone who lived in London, I can tell you that snowfall WAS a rare and exciting event. I can remember it snowing twice in 6 years of living there. I had little experience with snow until moving to the U.S. Snowfall in London already is a rare event. Its frequency has decreased dramatically over the last 100 years. I'm sure that's all that was being said, but of course they took a single quote out of context and make it sound like it's never ever EVER going to snow again.

Or the environmental refugees one. There have been millions of environmental refugees. It really just depends on how you count them.

Or the Hansen temperature predictions... your post claims that temperatures are currently not anywhere near what he predicted. Which is false. As we've been over, Hansen predicted around .4-.45C of warming by 2011, while we have seen around .35-.4C. The model was largely correct and we are certainly within the error bars.

[skierinvermont]

This doesn't even get us close to being at the 1998 temperatures for every year. Clearly another exaggeration.

There are another 10 years to go. Think.

[skierinvermont]

I'll take the under on warming ~0.2C in the next 9 years. Unless you use GISS as the sole method of temperature measurements.

So what would you have us use? HadCRUT which leaves large portions of the earth which have warmed rapidly blank?

Or UAH and RSS which are likely biased cold? (see other thread)

[ORH_wxman]

So what would you have us use? HadCRUT which leaves large portions of the earth which have warmed rapidly blank?

Or UAH and RSS which are likely biased cold? (see other thread)

I think taking an average is the best way to go if you want to argue trend. GISS has plenty of its own problems as demonstrated by its trend line change this past decade when you take out their polar extrapolations and replacement with the trend of satellite data.

If this STAR satellite source ever becomes mainstream, then it will be a viable measurement, but until that day, it doesn't hold much weight. We havent moved in nearly 10 years and I don't see anything that is going to give us a 0.2C rise in the next 9 years with the way the sun is behaving at the moment and the current ocean cycle trends. But who knows, maybe we'll see it rise anyway.

[nzucker]

Yes they are... for example.. the England snowfall thing. He says that "snowfall will become a rare and exciting event." Direct quote. Well as someone who lived in London, I can tell you that snowfall WAS a rare and exciting event. I can remember it snowing twice in 6 years of living there. I had little experience with snow until moving to the U.S. Snowfall in London already is a rare event. Its frequency has decreased dramatically over the last 100 years. I'm sure that's all that was being said, but of course they took a single quote out of context and make it sound like it's never ever EVER going to snow again.

Or the environmental refugees one. There have been millions of environmental refugees. It really just depends on how you count them.

Or the Hansen temperature predictions... your post claims that temperatures are currently not anywhere near what he predicted. Which is false. As we've been over, Hansen predicted around .4-.45C of warming by 2011, while we have seen around .35-.4C. The model was largely correct and we are certainly within the error bars.

You just lived in London during a +NAO period...that's why you didn't see much snow. Since the -NAO started in 08-09, London has seen several large (6"+) snowfalls and many smaller events.

And no, that's not all that was being said...Viner said British kids would need virtual reality to see snowfall! So maybe you shouldn't always support the authorities just because you like to side with the establishment as instinct...actually read, as you frequently tell Bethesda!

There are another 10 years to go. Think.

UAH averages around .43C in 1998...to get every year together to that mean is ambitious at best. You can't have years like this year, which is running around zero.

[skierinvermont]

I think taking an average is the best way to go if you want to argue trend. GISS has plenty of its own problems as demonstrated by its trend line change this past decade when you take out their polar extrapolations and replacement with the trend of satellite data.

If this STAR satellite source ever becomes mainstream, then it will be a viable measurement, but until that day, it doesn't hold much weight. We havent moved in nearly 10 years and I don't see anything that is going to give us a 0.2C rise in the next 9 years with the way the sun is behaving at the moment and the current ocean cycle trends. But who knows, maybe we'll see it rise anyway.

I mean I probably would take the under on .2C as well, but not by much. I think we'll be close to 1998 temperatures by 2020.

[nzucker]

I mean I probably would take the under on .2C as well, but not by much. I think we'll be close to 1998 temperatures by 2020.

If 2020 is a strong El Niño, it will come in close to 1998. If not, it won't.

[ORH_wxman]

I mean I probably would take the under on .2C as well, but not by much. I think we'll be close to 1998 temperatures by 2020.

I'll be pretty surprised if we get much more than half of the 0.2C.

[ORH_wxman]

If 2020 is a strong El Niño, it will come in close to 1998. If not, it won't.

Well 2010 came close to 1998, but I was talking about a running mean temp by 2020. Not individual year. If we start seeing ENSO neutral years flirt 1998 by then.

[nzucker]

Well 2010 came close to 1998, but I was talking about a running mean temp by 2020. Not individual year. If we start seeing ENSO neutral years flirt 1998 by then.

I know, that was my point...no way the mean is at 1998 levels given what we're seeing now.

[skierinvermont]

Well 2010 came close to 1998, but I was talking about a running mean temp by 2020. Not individual year. If we start seeing ENSO neutral years flirt 1998 by then.

Using an average of HadCRUT and GISS 60-60 and UAH for the poles, 2005, and 2010 both topped 1998.

[tacoman25]

Yes they are... for example.. the England snowfall thing. He says that "snowfall will become a rare and exciting event." Direct quote. Well as someone who lived in London, I can tell you that snowfall WAS a rare and exciting event. I can remember it snowing twice in 6 years of living there. I had little experience with snow until moving to the U.S. Snowfall in London already is a rare event. Its frequency has decreased dramatically over the last 100 years. I'm sure that's all that was being said, but of course they took a single quote out of context and make it sound like it's never ever EVER going to snow again.

Or the environmental refugees one. There have been millions of environmental refugees. It really just depends on how you count them.

Or the Hansen temperature predictions... your post claims that temperatures are currently not anywhere near what he predicted. Which is false. As we've been over, Hansen predicted around .4-.45C of warming by 2011, while we have seen around .35-.4C. The model was largely correct and we are certainly within the error bars.

1. Why would a prominent scientist for CRU make a statement to the media about the obvious? He was clearly indicating that snowfall would soon become very uncommon in England, even more than it was, and he was clearly tying it to AGW. After all, he is a climate scientist.

2. So why would the U.N make a statement that cannot be verified in any way?

3. Look again. Hansen made separate statments for the globe and the U.S., neither of which have been correct. He said globally we would be warmer than at any point in the last 100,000 years by 2001 (within 15 years of 1986), which certainly wasn't true. And his U.S. temperature predictions were way off.

You really should stop trying to defend a man who has conclusively proven he makes inaccurate predictions, based on AGW theory. There are many examples of this.

[BethesdaWX]

Using an average of HadCRUT and GISS 60-60 and UAH for the poles, 2005, and 2010 both topped 1998.

UAH and RSS disagree, and that is the entire LT, not random surface stations & extrapolations.

The LT is supposed to warm faster and harder than surface, according to AGW laws.

[tacoman25]

You just lived in London during a +NAO period...that's why you didn't see much snow. Since the -NAO started in 08-09, London has seen several large (6"+) snowfalls and many smaller events.

Exactly. Too many climate scientists have made statements that demonstrate little apparent awareness of climate factors besides CO2.

Neglecting to properly study/account for natural factors is coming back to bite a lot of scientists in the butt.

[ORH_wxman]

UAH and RSS disagree, and that is the entire LT, not random surface stations & extrapolations.

The LT is supposed to warm faster and harder than surface, according to AGW laws.

Regardless of what 2010 was, either slightly above or slightly below 1998....it doesn't change the larger picture of the past decade not moving worth a lick. I don't think we see 0.2C of warming between now and 2020.

[tacoman25]

Using an average of HadCRUT and GISS 60-60 and UAH for the poles, 2005, and 2010 both topped 1998.

The IPCC predictions are a mean. The 5 year mean is not close to 1998 levels yet, and I very much doubt it will be 9 years from now.

[superjames1992]

I think CO2 is overemphasized in these models while other factors, such as land use, deforestation, ect. is not taken into account as much as it should be.

[skierinvermont]

You just lived in London during a +NAO period...that's why you didn't see much snow. Since the -NAO started in 08-09, London has seen several large (6"+) snowfalls and many smaller events.

And no, that's not all that was being said...Viner said British kids would need virtual reality to see snowfall! So maybe you shouldn't always support the authorities just because you like to side with the establishment as instinct...actually read, as you frequently tell Bethesda!

UAH averages around .43C in 1998...to get every year together to that mean is ambitious at best. You can't have years like this year, which is running around zero.

The frequency of London snowfalls has declined dramatically LONG TERM not just due to the +NAO.

He also said that it would "a rare event" in the same comment where he said "children just aren't going to know snow" which is technically a contradiction, but anybody with a brain that isn't autistic can understand that he is not saying it's never going to snow again, it's just going get rarer and rarer. Which it has.

But of course people just want to take it out of context and interpret it literally because that's super fun and awesome and a totally intellectually super honest thing to do.